Victoria Segovia et al., vs.

The Climate Change Commission, Represented by its

Chairman, his excellency Benigno s. Aquino III, et al.

G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017

FACTS:

 This is a petition for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to

compel the implementation of the following environmental laws and executive
issuances - Republic Act No. (RA) 9729 (Climate Change Act), and RA 8749 (Clean
Air Act); Executive Order No. 774(BO 774); AO 254, s. 2009 (AO 254); and
Administrative Order No. 171, s. 2007(AO 171).

Accordingly, the Petitioners seek to compel: (a) the public respondents

to: (1)  implement the Road Sharing Principle in all roads; (2) divide all roads
lengthwise, one-half (½)  for all-weather sidewalk and bicycling, the other half for
Filipino-made transport vehicles; (3) submit a time-bound action plan to implement
the Road Sharing Principle throughout the country; (b) the Office of the President,
Cabinet officials and public employees of Cabinet members to reduce their fuel
consumption by fifty percent (50%) and to take public transportation fifty percent
(50%) of the time; (c)  Public respondent DPWH to demarcate and delineate the road
right-of-way in all roads and sidewalks; and (d) Public respondent DBM to instantly
release funds for Road Users' Tax.

In gist, petitioners contend that respondents' failure to implement the foregoing laws
and executive issuances resulted in the continued degradation of air quality,
particularly in Metro Manila, in violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology, and may even be tantamount to deprivation of life,
and of life sources or "land, water, and air" by the government without due process
of law. They also decry the "unequal" protection of laws in the prevailing scheme,
claiming that ninety-eight percent (98%) of Filipinos are discriminated against by the
law when the car-owning two percent (2%) is given almost all of the road space and
while large budgets are allocated for construction and maintenance of roads, hardly
any budget is given for sidewalks, bike lanes and non-motorized transportation
systems.

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment seeking

the outright dismissal of the petition for lack of standing and failure to adhere to the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Moreover, respondents argue that petitioners are not
entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

Respondents assert that petitioners are not entitled to a writ of kalikasan because they
failed to show that the public respondents are guilty of an unlawful act or omission;
state the environmental law/s violated; show environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health of inhabitants of two or more cities.

ISSUES: Whether or not a Writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should

be issued?
HELD: No, the petitioners failed to establish the requisites for the issuance of the
writs prayed for.

For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur:

1. there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced

and healthful ecology;

2. the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a

public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and

3. the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental

damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or provinces.

It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be
violated.

In this case, the petitioners failed to show that public respondents are guilty of any
unlawful act or omission that constitutes a violation of the petitioners' right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.

Petitioners were not able to prove that respondents are guilty of violation or neglect
of environmental laws that causes or contributes to bad air quality. Notably, apart
from bare allegations, petitioners were not able to show that respondents failed to
execute any of the laws petitioners cited. In fact, apart from adducing expert
testimony on the adverse effects of air pollution on public health, the petitioners did
not go beyond mere allegation in establishing the unlawful acts or omissions on the
part of the public respondents that have a causal link or reasonable connection to the
actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules, as required of petitions of
this nature.

Likewise, the writ of continuing mandamus cannot be issued. First, the petitioner

failed to prove direct or personal injury arising from acts attributable to the
respondents to be entitled to the writ.1 Second, the Road Sharing Principle is
precisely as it is denominated - a principle. It cannot be considered an absolute
imposition to encroach upon the province of public respondents to determine the
manner by which this principle is applied or considered in their policy
decisions. Mandamus  lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely
ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary, and the official can only be
directed by mandamus to act but not to act one way or the other.